Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am kinda surprised there haven't been a lot of folks saying, "Why not BOTH?"

I like both systems, really. There's a ton of similarities between them, just as there are some differences between them, as well.

Personally, in my opinion, WHFB has a more solid set of rules. They aren't perfect by any means, but to this wargamer, overall, they just make more 'sense' and feel more fluid. I don't know how to better explain it.

That being said - I am still enjoying 40k 5th. It's already provided tons of fun for me and my companions, and it's been out what, 6 months?

So instead of saying "40K vs Fantasy", I prefer "40K AND Fantasy", myself.

Just my 2 coppers, tho.

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Yes. I'd say the average 40k player to falls in the 15-33 range while the average Fantasy player falls in the 25-infinity range.

two_heads_talking wrote:

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Yes. I'd say the average 40k player to falls in the 15-33 range while the average Fantasy player falls in the 25-infinity range.

Fantasy players are really larval grognards.

I prefer the tactical aspect of fantasy over 40k. In fantasy it's how well you can set stuff up, in 40k it's how many 4+ dice you can roll and what net trick you're exploiting.

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:Go back and check again, not for Space Marines obviously, but for some pretty awe inspiring battles...

WOOOOOOOOSH!!!

As punishment for your blatant lack of humour I am confiscating your Flashman books. You can have them back when I've finished reading them.

Yes, apologies for my ramblings. I'm probably a bigger geek with Flashman era history than I am with Warhammer. Enjoy reading them anyway, may I recommend skipping Royal Flash and most of Flashman and the Tiger (the middle story is hilarious though).

Ahem, getting back to topic...

Apone wrote:@John. What I meant by "worse game" is that I feel there is less in the players control during the game that affects the outcome. 40k depends mostly on good list construction and good luck with the dice.
Fantasy seems to be based more on good maneuvering and tactical match up. So it's about how you as the player set up and move your army.

Just my opinion, but when most of a game comes down to blind luck it isn't as fun to play for me. And that makes it not as good as a comparatively more skill based game.

Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I think 40k has more control, but it's different. With 40k, you roll a *lot* more dice, so the luck has much greater chance to even out. I can predict 40k results much more easily.

I agree Fantasy spends a lot of time on maneuvering, which stems from deployment / set up, as I noted. But dice-wise, there's much less being thrown. Two bricks of 60+ models in combat might only roll fewer than a dozen Attacks total to decide the outcome. That's a lot of room for something to skew the results. Also, as noted, there are more "surprises" that take away from pure tactical play. OTOH, if you were talking about Low Powered Fantasy, or Ancients, then I'd agree with you much more.

They're different games, but to say that Fantasy is "better" is odd, given that 40k outsells Fantasy by a large margin.

...I think GW has been kinder to 40K this year than Fantasy. After a pretty amazing start with Vampires, the army books for Daemons, Dark Elves and Chaos Warriors were a bit of let down for me (sold the first two, didn't even buy the 2nd).

There didn't seem to be much invention in any of them. Whereas Vampires introduced Varghulfs, Blood Knights and Corpse Carts (supported by new excellent models), there was a decided lack of new stuff for the rest.

Daemons got Heralds and Special Character Greater Daemons (but no models for them).

Dark Elves got er... nothing, lets move on.

Warriors of Chaos shifted some units around, nicked some stuff from Beasts of Chaos and added big stone statues. Oooh dynamic.

Although I wasn't really intending to collect these armies, I think fresh input keeps the game and background moving. If you do own the army, a new book should reinvigorate your interest whilst other players tinker with their armies to meet new challenges.

To the other extreme, 40K seems to reinvent itself with every new Codex. Not sure this is an entirely good thing, but it does hold my interest more...

JohnHwangDD wrote: They're different games, but to say that Fantasy is "better" is odd, given that 40k outsells Fantasy by a large margin.

More people went to see The Day the Earth Stood Still than Slumdog Millionaire thusly The Day the Earth Stood Still is a better film. McDonald's outsells In and Out Burger thus McDonalds has better food. Fantasy has better rules and attracts better gamers, 40K sells more and packs GW themed kiddie parties at GW stores. Which do I think is better? I have always been a quality over quantity kind of guy, plus screaming 10 year olds is not something I want to deal with on my weekends.

@Dice: I'm sorry, are you saying that the two movies / burger chains are anywhere near comparable in exposure, or are you making an apples to oranges comparison?

I wasn't even aware that Slumdog was a movie (is it?). In-n-Out is a regional chain, whereas McDonalds is global. They are not comparable.

40k and Fantasy are produced and marketed by the same company. They are comparable.

Epty Fantasy elitism = FAIL.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I wasn't even aware that Slumdog was a movie (is it?).

I do not find this surprising

JohnHwangDD wrote: In-n-Out is a regional chain, whereas McDonalds is global. They are not comparable.

No they both make hamburgers, one makes very good hamburgers one makes grease soaked hockey pucks they market as hamburgers.

JohnHwangDD wrote: 40k and Fantasy are produced and marketed by the same company. They are comparable.

I agree they are in terms of rules, play enviroment and players not "40K sells moar than fantasy in tha USA to 13 year olds so it RUUUUULEZZZ"

JohnHwangDD wrote: Epty Fantasy elitism = FAIL.

I am assuming you mean empty, that is your opinion. We all know how much that is worth.

@Dice: If you're going to compare things that are marketing driven, you need them to be comparable.

That means you compare a regional In-N-Out with another regional like Steak-N-Shake (FYI, SnS is clearly better, hands down).

Otherwise, you compare McDonalds with the burger you get at the Waldorf Astoria, because, hey, it's still just a burger.

Hey man, you started the "40k outsells Fantasy therefore 40k is better" nonsense. Which one is "better" is always going to be PURELY subjective. You say 40k is better, others think Fantasy is better, just not as appealing to the masses (which I happen to agree with).


FYI, you are both wrong. Blood Bowl is clearly the superior game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

All (or at least most of) the Specialist Games have better rules than either. The problem is none of them use the same models as regular WHFB or 40K, so it they tend to require a lot of conversions or finding out of production models to play. Plus, it's hard to find a game.

Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

I agree with Augustus. In my experience, games of Fantasy are won by:

Failed Terror tests
That super unit (Blood Knights with the ward save banner and the regen banner) or (Bloodthirster with *anything*)
A souped up character beating the snot out of a unit
A really nice shot with a cannon/stone thrower
Repeated casting of certain spells (warp lightning, conflagration of doom)

And that's usually it. Occasionally I see a nice flank charge that rolls up the army. Usually this is chaos knights. If it's anything like orcs or empire swordsmen I am utterly shocked.

I started out playing Fantasy, but I've little motivation to play it currently because the big armies at my store are HE, Vampires, and Demons. So I can face the ASF army where charging doesn't matter. Or the undead army where all my fear-causing stuff doesn't matter and their stuff comes back. Or the Demon army where I'm supposed to deal with a flying terror causer with 5 wounds and a 4+ ward save who likely has any number of powerful upgrades. There are orc players, but they never come in any more (because O&G handicaps itself with animosity). The Empire player switched to HE. The chaos mortals player switched to VC. He may actually play WoC, but I don't think he realizes how bad they are yet. Oh and there is a Bret player. It's sooo much fun to face an army where everything has a ward save and almost everything has a 2+ armor save.

Then again for 40k, at my store we have CSM, SM, Black Templars (soon to be SM), Demons (the "for fun" army), Orks, Orks, Necrons, Nids, and Nids. Occasionally we see IG and Sisters. Tau have stopped showing up since the edition change. Oh, and there is 2 Eldar. So I can take my marine army and fight a marine army, or an army designed to kill a marine army. Currently I'm working on a Demon army, but to be honest there isn't much motivation for me to build the models because I don't have that much fun playing the game.

So which is best, 40k or Fantasy? I say: neither. Both have bad rules sets and poor balance.

When my BFG fleet finally comes I will play the hell out of that. Until then I guess I will play around with the Battletech starter box. That's gotten big at my store all of a sudden.

Fantasy appeals to me more now, because of the more advanced ruleset and the fact that most 40K players are overenthusiastic 12-year-olds who get raging hardons for the Ultramarines.
Furthermore, Fantasy seems more realistic with the battle formations and whatnot. I like a sense of realism even in the most outrageously designed games. Video games should heed this too; it's something that the Call of Duty series and Counter-Strike do very well.

Orkeosaurus wrote:All (or at least most of) the Specialist Games have better rules than either. The problem is none of them use the same models as regular WHFB or 40K, so it they tend to require a lot of conversions or finding out of production models to play. Plus, it's hard to find a game.

Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

I've played BFG and blood bowl and both games had simple rules that kicked the crap out of Fantasy and 40k. I've not played Necromunda or Warmaster, though I've read the rules. Warmaster sounds like a much more strategy-oriented than either of the 2 main games. I like that your general is there to lead the army, not be the most bad ass character in it. And Necromunda just sounds cool.

I've heard nothing but glowing praise for Epic 40k (other than the models are tiny!). But I've not bothered to read the rules because I prefer a hardcopy, not a pdf. (Friend of mine gave me a warmaster rulebook because it was cool & cheap).

Oh, and I'd buy the bloodbowl set if it wasn't incredibly overpriced at $75 USD.

I prefer fantasy for the tactical battle, only problem there is trying to find a game. I also like 40k (prefer 5th from 4th) as i find it a more relaxing game to play as i don't have to remember as many rules. But by far i prefer necromunda, its probarly one of the best games imo that games workshop have made. Its too bad they don't put any effort into at all.

Yes, BFG is a great game!

But it's only a handful of models, and has nothing huge like a Baneblade or Titan.

Nothing wrong with that. I like the tiny models of Warmaster and Epic: they make forces look like an army and not just a bunch of guys.

Besides, big models kinda kill the whole point of miniature wargaming.

Nurglitch wrote:Nothing wrong with that. I like the tiny models of Warmaster and Epic: they make forces look like an army and not just a bunch of guys.

Yes, EPIC isn't it, with the scale being so small. Touche!

Noisy_Marine wrote:I agree with Augustus. In my experience, games of Fantasy are won by:

(Tricks)

Thanks, that was my experience as well. I know there are a lot of great fantasy players, and I have actually tried and enjoyed the Warhammer historical games, which are smashing (because there are no magic dragons/daemons flying etc.). I can certainly appreciate the game of maneuver, it is pretty cool, but in my experience it gets talked up a lot (in WHFB contexts) and what really happens are the tricks, some of which you described quite well, dominate the game.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Then again for 40k, at my store we have CSM, SM, Black Templars (soon to be SM), Demons (the "for fun" army), Orks, Orks, Necrons, Nids, and Nids. Occasionally we see IG and Sisters. Tau have stopped showing up since the edition change.

That's about my experience also, I sold all my Eldar and my IG haven't left the shelf since their 1st 3 strait losses in 5th. Yea, I could level my "tricks" argument against some of 40k too, especially the daemon codex which throws the mission structure I was claiming was better right out the window with their own unique rules... Its not the only game changing issue either, see also: book of saint lucious, stubborn armies, hive mind and Orks, which all generally break the game in some way...

Noisy_Marine wrote:So which is best, 40k or Fantasy? I say: neither. Both have bad rules sets and poor balance.

In a lot of ways they really are the same (assault) game, especially with the new 40K morale and CC rules. I think you may have it right.

I will always love the modeling and the themes!

I prefer fantasy, but then again, I'm not that into Sci-Fi to begin with. I like the neat, ordered looks of the blocks of fantasy models - they look great on a shelf, since I can't play WHFB on a regular basis.

I do bring some High-Tech to my High Elves though for the sake of being random. If you ever run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

Lord Bingo wrote:...necromunda, its probarly one of the best games imo that games workshop have made. It's too bad they don't put any effort into at all.

Indeed, I had years of fun with that. Huzah.

Arondight wrote:...run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

Oh my, that sounds...

Exquisite!

Ozymandias wrote:Hey man, you started the "40k outsells Fantasy therefore 40k is better" nonsense. Which one is "better" is always going to be PURELY subjective. You say 40k is better, others think Fantasy is better, just not as appealing to the masses (which I happen to agree with).


FYI, you are both wrong. Necromunda is clearly the superior game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Fixed your Typo

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

Show me a Grand Tournament full of 14 year old boys playing fantasy.

Noisy_Marine wrote:So which is best, 40k or Fantasy? I say: neither. Both have bad rules sets and poor balance.

Both of them have problems, only one of them causes me to pay attention in order to win. I will give a clue, it does not have Space Marines in 999,999 colors.

Here's some 6mm scale troops.




These are Russian Napoleonic line infantry based on 60mm square brigade bases. I just put them in to show there are alternatives to 40K and WHFB that look nice in small scales.

Dice Monkey wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

Show me a Grand Tournament full of 14 year old boys playing fantasy.

Show me a Grand Tournament full of 200 year old tap-dancers playing Snakes and Ladders.



When did I say that Grand Tournaments were filled with 14 year old Fantasy players? :?

I barely see screaming children at all when I play 40k, and I've seen a couple in Fantasy too.

@Orkeo - the screaming children that I've seen playing GW games have all been at least 20 years old....

Arondight wrote:
If you ever run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

That army is made of pure win!

I have played 40k since it was called Rogue Trader, but after have played Star Grunts II I quickly came to realize what a poor sci-fi rules set it has become.

40k is at best a beer & pretzels game that should be played for fun and not a whole lot of thought. Ironically that is how the game got started in the first place.

I think for many players all they know is 40k or WFB. Most of them probable have never played anything else so they have no measuring stick as to how good or bad a rule set is.